Whatever Happens Regarding Reagan Airport..................
 

What they implement at Reagan SHOULD BE what's done at all airports in this country. The reason it hasn't opened yet is because they don't have control of the flying situation yet; if they did, Reagan would be open already. Why should rules be any stricter and things done more carefully there, with plenty of manpower, than at the airports for the rest of us? Please urge your reps to spend & legislate what's necessary for ALL OF US to feel safe, and hopefully (never a guarantee), be safe when we fly. JMHO!

I understand they are planning a new flight path into Washington National Airport that will take planes right over our house. It was so quiet before when they flew over the Potomac River, now they will fly over 10,000s of homes instead.

Just shows you that the people in Washington believe that they are more important than people in the rest of the country. Why are the people in the White House and Capital more important than people on the flight path of other airports. How far is Midway Airport from downtown Chicago?

Umm, okay- I agree efforts to make flying safer should be across the board, however look at the proximity of Reagan to the seat of gov't. Yes, in many ways those people ARE more important. I've flown out of National many times, and have always been amazed that the airport was allowed to operate. With Dulles and BWI in vicinity I'm not sure it should EVER be reopened. BTW, rumour has it that yes, the people on the Pittsburg flight were heros, but as debris was found 6 miles from the crash site, the military may have brought that plane down. Response to a takeover out of National ( and perhaps Dulles as far as that's concerned) could not be fast enough.

I wish people would cease suggesting that DC thinks of itself as a special case. DCA is the only airport not open. It is a graveyard right now ... you ought to see it. Lets think in national terms, not parochial. You ought to be happy DCA will reopen ... do you think it serves some purpose to allow a brand new $1 billion airport to stay close? What about the thousands of jobs? The services? The nearby hotels, etc.? The airlines? The tourists who want to visit DC? The 42,000 people who use DCA every single day of the year? Lets try to develop a more national, more human spirit. Reopening National will require adjustment ... I know ... I have lived under its flight path for the past 28 months. What's a little noise? The silence we experience 24 hours a day right now is deafening. The only jets are F-16's far overhead. Bring on the commercial jets to DCA, and lets improve air safety for all of us. I am happy National is going to open. I wish we all were. Ciao

The ONLY reasons DCA is opening are 1. politicians don't want to have to drive too far to get a flight and 2. USAir and other airlines have ultimate clout over Mineta. <BR> <BR>I'll say it one more time. Instead of dangerously and needlessly cluttering the DC airspace, rail service for the eastern regional short-run trips should be beefed up considerably and Dulles and BWI should be used for the longer hauls. Door-to-door lightrail to BWI is already available; it would be very simple to provide high-speed rail shuttle to Dulles.

Believe me, I'm not unhappy re: reopening, just apprehensive. I'm not saying DC thinks of itself as a special place, I'm saying that it IS a special place.

Now, DCA somewhere else, that is just the most simpleminded dribble. DCA serves 17 million people annually, not just Congress. Do you live in our area, or is this just your version of long-distance wisdom? Mineta doesn't answer to the airlines. It is not simple to provide high-speed rail to Dulles, although that is in the planning stages right now. To argue that rail, in lieu of DCA, can service the eastern US, and that Dulles and BWI should be reserved for the longer hauls simply shows you have no idea of what the actual situation here is. These are very old, outworn ideas ... there is nothing new or useful at all in what you suggest ... all of it has been studied and dismissed. All of it. Door-to-door light rail to BWI ... if what you mean is the train from Union Station to the BWI station ... that's neither new nor revolutionary, and certainly not a readily viable option for people in the DC area ... unless you'd like to add hours to their trips. And you overlook that a number of cities have airports near the downtown area ... ever been to Chicago, Philly or San Diego? Why should DC not have the same service? Thankfully the DCA haters are few in number, and it will be opened, inspite of your ravings and those of a few other misguided souls. Not to be rude to you, but do try to become better informed about DCA. We do not need your negativism right now, okay? Ciao

I too am surprised that people are accepting the idea that we need extra security for National (e.g., air marshalls on every flight) that we don't need on other flights operating out of other airports. After all, the Pentagon plane left from Dulles. <BR> <BR>From what I've heard of the proposals for security, it seems that our elected officials have decided simply to change procedures to guard against another WTC attack and ONLY against that kind of attack. <BR> <BR>To me, this view is illogical. If someone broke into my house through a bedroom window, I wouldn't beef up security by putting bars over just that one window. If airport security is a sieve, then we need to start plugging holes as fast as we can. This will take years, so we had best get started now. <BR> <BR>All airplanes present a risk, not just those hijacked near Washington. How many more times will terrorists have to hit us before we finally get serious?

Just an idea: is it feasible to register and train passengers to aid sky marshalls in the event a hijacking gets underway? Absurd perhaps. Pre-11th absurd. CPR ... Heimlich maneuver ... defibilation onboard and in terminals? Volunteers to handle emergency exits? Aren't we now ready to look for some new ways to save even more fellow passengers? Hasn't the equation changed forever? I'd name it the "Lets Roll Volunteers" after those brave souls over Pa. I'd rather pitch in than sit there for the ride down. Ciao

For the thousands of contractors flying in and out of National on a regular basis, it's convenience is a major help. My spouse has an upcoming trip there. Until today (Tues) the reservations were for Dulles AND a rental car. With National open again, flight time is shorter and no rental car is necessary. The D.C. area is not equipped to deal with the additional thousands of rental cars needed if National were to be closed permanently. Now if the Metro were to be extended to Dulles . . . <BR> <BR>My sister used to live in the D.C. area. Typically she chose to fly in and out of National for a major reason: she could take the Metro straight from work or home to and from National. Again, if the Metro were to be extended to Dulles . . .

Perhaps the reason why National Airport is receiving special security measures is because it is used by so many members of Congress and their families. They want it safe for themselves. <BR> <BR>Does eveyone know that Congressman and Supreme Court Justices get free, close in parking at National. That means they can get in and out of the city very easily, within minutes. I don't think they are ready to give up such easy access to the city. <BR> <BR>I heard that all flights originating elsewhere but arriving at National will get the same added security

I'd say that National is receiving the additional security because of its proximity to so much of the government's headquarters in all aspects of life.

At the speed of flight Dulles is only a few minutes away from DC. Because most of the flights out of National are relatively short.,,,,they would not have the full tanks of fuel that a transcontinental or international flight out of Dulles (or even BWI) would have. <BR> <BR>I don't think that a flight out of National would develop the speed or have the fuel to be a flying bomb and do the damage (estimated at 500 mil) to the pentagon that was done by the plane out of Dulles. <BR>

Back again to say that my original point was and still is that all airports should be equally safe. The safety measures that are implemented at Reagan Airport should pertain to ALL airports, no matter what the cost, because this nation's economy will collapse without a healthy and safe aviation system - I absolutely do believe our government buildings and our officials should be safe, absolutely, and SO SHOULD WE! Don't sent for less - call your senators & reps, please!

While I agree that security at all airports is important, I don't agree with statements such as "...no matter what the cost." Cost DOES matter, if we are to have an accessible system that people can use in the future.